Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint already declares the safety profile, and the description adds two real behavioral facts beyond it: only approved (moderated) messages are returned, and the content is untrusted third-party material to be treated as notes rather than instructions. It omits ordering, recency, and whether older messages are reachable via the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one piece of operating guidance that matters. No filler or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-required-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, content filter, and trust posture. The notable gap is return shape and pagination — nothing tells the agent how many messages come back or how to page beyond the limit cap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage (no description, only default 20 and max 50), and the description says nothing about it — no mention of page size, ordering, or how to retrieve more messages. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read approved messages ... on the Agent Bazaar board.' The 'approved' qualifier also signals a moderated subset. It implicitly contrasts with post_message (read vs. write) but never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this to see board content. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or routing to post_message for writing, nor any mention of whether the board should be checked periodically or before posting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.